Notting Hill Genesis (201811579)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001355

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 September 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Excessive heat in the property.
2. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.
3. The issuing of a Notice of Seeking Possession.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a Housing Association. The resident is a vulnerable tenant who has Polycystic Kidney Disease and has had a kidney transplant and takes anti-rejection medication which lowers his immunity to viruses and infections.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord will provide a written response within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response they can request a review of the decision and the landlord aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that ASB is any conduct that causes or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress or nuisance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. The policy highlights that possible remedies for ASB include mediation, warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, and working with other external agencies. Where the behaviour persists the landlord can apply for legal notices, ASB orders, injunctions and possession (eviction) proceedings.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the central heating at the property. It also highlights the timeframes for repairs to be assessed and completed at the property, it states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 days from the date that they are reported.
Under the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy, where the resident expressed dissatisfaction with a service failure the landlord can make a discretionary payment up to £250. This includes cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a ‘making good’ payment.

Summary of events

Between August 2017 and July 2019, there were 12 complaints raised by the resident in relation to issues with the heating at the resident’s property. The resident alleged that the landlord and/or his former neighbour had fitted a heat device into the floor which caused his flat to get extremely hot and affect his health. The resident reported that two different surveyors attended the property in 2017 and experienced the heating issues however no fault was reported in relation to the heating in the apartment.
In January, August and October 2018, surveyors had attended the complex and inspected the resident’s property and the property above and next door and found no fault with the heating in any of the apartments. The landlord suggested that the resident go to his doctor and get medical evidence in order for it to approve modifications to the resident’s property. The landlord also advised its Connect and Tenancy Support Team about the ongoing issues.
On 1 October 2018, the resident was found guilty of harassing his neighbour following historic incidences of ASB at the property and was committed to prison for 10 weeks suspended for 12 months. A restraining order was also granted and the resident was prohibited from contacting the victim directly or indirectly.
On 11 January 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that he felt he was being victimised and conspired against and that the hot temperature in the property was being used to make him leave his property. The landlord responded and advised that this was not true and that no issue had been discovered with the heating, the landlord suggested that it was the resident’s medication causing his swollen legs and not the heat from the property.
On 26 April 2019, a heating specialist inspected the heating at the resident’s property and a gas inspection certificate was issued and no problems were detected in relation to the internal heating system. An inspection was also performed in the upstairs flat and no issue was found.
On 11 July 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and informed it of an ASB incident that occurred at the property. He advised that his neighbour had controlled the heating in his property and that she had turned off his electrical supply and physically attacked him with a broom. He contacted the police but no further action was taken. The landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator the same day and his neighbour made counter allegations against the resident. No further action was taken by the landlord.
On 24 July 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in relation to a number of issues at the property including:
1. Heating at the property – he advised that his heat was potentially being tampered with and that heat had come from neighbouring properties which caused an uncomfortably hot temperature in his flat. He said that two heat surveys had taken place and that one operative lied and said that he had his central heating on at the time of the survey. The resident advised that he needs to use 3 fans to fall asleep due to the heat and that the temperature had caused burns and irritations to his skin.
2. ASB – he advised that there had been false accusations of ASB from his neighbour against him in 2018. He advised that on 11 June 2019 he reported a different neighbour to police as she had been shouting abuse, knocking on his door and switching his electricity off, he provided two CAD reference numbers.
3. Notice of Seeking Possession– that he received an invalid eviction notice which was addressed correctly but was posted to the wrong address and it asked him to vacate the property by 10 December 2018 due to an ASB finding against him.
On 1 august 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the heat problem was getting worse in his flat. The resident claimed that it was a ‘radiation type heat’ and that it was being controlled by his neighbour. The landlord advised that it would look into the matter and would contact the resident as soon as possible.
On 1,16 and 29 August 2019, the resident made further complaints to the landlord about the heat issue and advised that both his upstairs and downstairs neighbours were controlling the heat. He advised that he had not received any response from the landlord in relation to his ASB incident.
On 10 September 2019, a gas safety inspection of the flat above the resident took place and no concerns were identified with the heating or flooring.
On 21 September 2019, the landlord contacted its Care and Support team due to the resident’s vulnerabilities and his theories that his ‘apartment was being deliberately heated to get him out of the property’.
On 11 October 2019, the landlord performed a home visit at the resident’s property to investigate if he was using an industrial fan. It was discovered that the resident had three fans but no industrial fan.
On 16 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and said that he was yet to receive a response in relation to his complaint from 24 July 2019.
On 13 November 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following issues:
1. Heating issues at the property – it advised the resident that the neighbouring flat he accused of tampering with his heating system was vacant at the time of his complaint. It stated that it had specialist contractors attend the property to check the heating and it was advised that it was in full working order and showed no signs of being tampered with.
2. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) accusations against the resident – it advised that this had been fully considered by its Neighbourhoods department and the courts on 1 October 2018 and the verdict was in favour of the resident’s neighbour. It said that the matter had exhausted its complaints process but advised that any further ASB issues should be reported at first instance to police and a report made.
3. Being served a Notice of Seeking Possession– the landlord advised that sending the notice to the wrong address was an administrative error as its solicitors managed all correspondence relating to eviction. It asked the resident to provide a copy of the letter for further investigation.
4. Complaint handling – It apologised to the resident and offered a £75 goodwill gesture for the delay in providing the resident with its stage one response.
On 10 December 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord and provided a detailed history of the complaint and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 13 February and 17 March 2020, a gas safety inspection was carried out at the resident’s property and no concerns were identified with heating.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord had a heating specialist inspect the resident’s neighbour’s property and detected no defects or faults with the heating.
On 29 May 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two response and addressed the following issues:
1. Excessive heat in the flat – it advised that in 2017 it investigated the resident’s claims and inspected the property with a heating specialist and no excessive heat was found. It provided evidence that in January, August and October 2018, a surveyor attended the complex and inspected the resident’s property and the neighbouring properties and found no fault with the heating in any of the apartments. Following the most recent claims it performed inspections on 13 February 2020 and 17 March 2020 and on neither occasion did the engineer find a fault in the system. It inspected the neighbouring property on 13 March and found no irregularities or works required. It advised that if the resident could provide medical evidence of excessive heat from the property causing medical issues then it could perform any suggested adaptations. It stated that it could also install thermometers to monitor and evidence the temperature in the flat at various times.
2. Alleged antisocial behaviour by a neighbour– it apologised for its poor handling of the resident’s complaint in July 2019 and accepted that it did not keep the resident’s file as active which caused the resident distress and uncertainty. It offered the resident £250 compensation in the form of a goodwill gesture for the distress and inconvenience caused and for the number of occasions the resident needed to contact it to get further advice.
3. Eviction notice – It advised that the resident had been issued with a Notice of Seeking Possession in accordance with its procedures due to his harassment conviction following a trial brought by his neighbour. The neighbouring resident moved out of the property in July 2018 and therefore the issues connected to the matter ceased and no further action would be taken.
4. Complaints handling – it advised that it had 12 complaints from the resident in relation to heating at the property going back to August 2017. It advised that the complaints were dealt with by Housing Officers, ASB Advisors and its Complaints Team staff whose comments on the system indicated that they contacted the resident, often by phone, to discuss the issues or inform the resident of the outcome of the previous investigations. It conceded that some cases were closed without a formal or written response and apologised for the error. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the poor way it dealt with the resident’s complaint and the inconvenience caused by the delay in providing a response. It advised that going forward the residents housing office would be the sole point of contact to ensure that inquiries receive the appropriate attention and response.

Assessment and findings

Excessive heat in the property.

The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is not to determine if there was a fault with the heating at the property but to assess how the landlord responded to such reports. The resident raised a number of complaints in relation to the excessive heat at the property, the landlord has an obligation under its repairs policy to repair and maintain the central heating and to complete any repairs within a 20-day time period.
The resident first raised the issues with the heating in 2017, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and had two different surveyors attend the property and neither were able to find a fault with the heating system. Following ongoing complaints from the resident the landlord had heat specialists attend the property on at least seven occasions to inspect the resident’s and his neighbours heating which was appropriate and in line with its repairs obligations. It was determined on all occasions that there was no fault in the heating system and that it had not been tampered with by any individual. The landlord is able to rely upon the professional opinion of its contractors and by the contractors stating that there was not an issue with the heating system the landlord had taken adequate action to investigate the problem.
Although there was no evidence of an issue with the heating the landlord took a resolution focused approach and asked the resident to provide any medical evidence that excessive heat from the property was causing his medical issues and assured the resident that it would perform any suggested adaptations. It also advised that it could install thermometers to monitor the temperature in the flat at various times. The resident failed to provide any evidence to the landlord from a medical professional and did not contact the landlord to install the thermometer. Given the residents‘ venerability, although not obligated, the landlord as a matter of best practice should have followed up more closely on its offers to the resident and provide any support he might need in obtaining any medical or other evidence. Overall, given the number of times the landlord had professionals investigate the issues the landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations in responding to the resident’s reports of faulty heating at the property.

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.

The resident raised concerns about ASB at the property on 11 June 2019 and again in his stage one complaint on 24 July 2019. The landlord appropriately contacted the alleged perpetrator who made counter allegations against the resident. The landlord however failed to open an ASB case file in relation to the matter which was not appropriate or in line with its ASB policy. It is evident that the ASB issues at the property had an acknowledged impact and caused the resident significant distress. It would have been reasonable to expect due to the resident venerability that the landlord take reasonable steps to adequately investigate any and all reports by the resident in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord acknowledged its failure in its stage two response and appropriately apologised for the distress and uncertainty caused to the resident. It offered the resident £250 compensation in the form of a goodwill gesture for the distress and inconvenience caused and for the number of occasions the resident needed to contact it to get further advice. Given the circumstances of the case the amount of compensation offered by the landlord reflects the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector and was sufficient to remedy the landlord’s failure.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s allegations of historic ASB from 2018 was appropriate as it had previously completed the landlord’s complaints process and a court determination had been issued. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that if there were any issues going forward then he should report them to the landlord or local police inline with its ASB policy.

The issuing of a Notice of Seeking Possession

It is not disputed that the landlord issued the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession following the conviction of the resident of harassment of his neighbour. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, eviction proceedings can be commenced following the conviction of a resident for ASB related issues. The resident complained to the landlord that the Notice of Seeking Possession was sent to the wrong address and was invalid. The landlord appropriately investigated the matter and discovered that the Notice was sent to the wrong address and apologised to the resident for the mistake. It advised the resident that it would no longer be seeking possession as the neighbour in question had moved from the property. The actions taken by the landlord were appropriate and inline with its ASB policy and an apology was sufficient to remedy the landlord’s acknowledged mistake.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

There were acknowledged failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident made his stage one complaint on 24 July 2019 and the landlord provided a stage one response on 13 November 2019. This represents a significant three-month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage one response and it failed to appropriately alert the resident about the delay in line with its complaints policy.
The resident asked for a review of the decision on 10 December 2019 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its final stage two review on 29 May 2020. This represents a further three–month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two complaint response. However, the landlord appropriately offered the resident £250 for the delays experienced at stage one and two of the complaints process. This amount was sufficient to adequately compensate for the delays at both stages of the complaints process and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It appropriately advised that going forward the residents housing office would be the sole point of contact to ensure that his inquiries receive the appropriate attention and response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily with respect to its handling of:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. Excessive heat in the property.
2. The issuing of a Notice of Seeking Possession.

Reasons

The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were not appropriate or in accordance with its obligations and policies. It failed to take proportionate steps to investigate the resident’s reports causing distress to the resident. The landlord offered an apology in relation to the failure and £250 compensation which was appropriate to remedy its failure.
The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies. The landlord failed to complete stage one and two of the complaint’s procedure within the correct time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay. The landlord however offered an amount of compensation which this Service has assessed as having adequately redressed all the issues.
The landlord took a resolution focused approach and investigated the resident’s reports in relation to the heating on a number of occasions in line with its repairs policy. No faults were discovered during any of the inspection and the landlord appropriately offered to install thermometers in the property and asked the resident to supply medical evidence in order to perform the required modifications.
The landlord was within its rights to issue the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession. Due to an administrative error the landlord sent the notice to the wrong address, it appropriately offered the resident an apology for the mistake which was appropriate to rectify the error.

Recommendations

That the landlord reoffers the resident the £500 previously offered.